Author Topic: J-Roberts 3 line handle/bellcranks for sale/SOLD (Read 3762 times)

Paul Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2014, 05:13:36 AM »

Four handles and ten bellcranks - make an offer.

2.4 is here.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2014, 12:36:18 PM »

Paul,

Old J-Roberts or newer G&S/L&R/Brodak?

Paul Smith · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2014, 03:49:32 PM »

Just kidding.

I do have four 3-line handles, some J Roberts, some Brodak. Based on my observation of carrier and scale, 3-line has gone the way of The Pony Express and 8-tracks. I'll keep mine to fly my oldies. But my new planes all have RC receivers ($3.72 vs $20 for a Brodak bellcrank) and all are controlled by a 2.4 car controller ($42 vs $56 for a Brodak handle).

Stunt guys beware!! If you allow this the piston engine is history is stunt along with scale. Offboard RC speed controls and shutoffs will put the final nail in your cross. You heard it here first.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2014, 10:11:23 AM »

I must say this I will be using IC for a long long time or at least as long as the good LORD lets me. Same with 3 line control. Just need to fly more and not worry about if batteries are charged or not. Of course this day and time of my life I fly for fun when and if I want to. Did not do any practice at Brodaks and had a great time just seeing and meeting people.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2014, 06:05:34 PM »

Paul, I have no idea why you aren't converting to electric now. Some might say you don't know what you are missing. Grab the gold ring of technology, IC be damned.
Wyne

Paul Smith · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2014, 07:41:52 PM »

All my new scale and carrier and sport and stunt stuff and my self launcher have 2.4 engine control.

But the engines are still engines, as the lord intends.
My entire fleet of ground cars have gas engines and electric starters and radios.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2014, 05:41:11 PM »

I have one scale plane left with an OS-35FP for power and it's my last glow powered scale model. All future projects will be electric!

Fred

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2014, 06:59:32 PM »

Quote from: Wayne J. Buran on August 08, 2014, 06:05:34 PM

Paul, I have no idea why you aren't converting to electric now. Some might say you don't know what you are missing. Grab the gold ring of technology, IC be damned.
Wyne

Some people still race horses even though motorcycles are faster. This is sport not war.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2014, 07:56:56 PM »

Quote from: Paul Smith on August 09, 2014, 06:59:32 PM

Some people still race horses even though motorcycles are faster. This is sport not war.

Maybe not for as long as you think.
Thanks
Wayne

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2014, 06:20:19 AM »

Interesting read over in the speed column basically the demise of control line and parallel with carrier. It won't be long before we have to figure out who's job it is to turn the lights out. Of course 2.4 and electrics can save us all, I doubt it.
Wayne

Paul Smith · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2014, 09:12:24 AM »

I guess question becomes this:

If the future of CL is to buy and convert a 2.4 RC ARF, why bother making the conversion? Just fly it and save the cost of the bellcrank, lines, and handle.

Lights out for scale! Maybe carrier, too.
Lights out for piston engine stunt if they approve 2.4 offboard.
What about racing? Swapping Lipo packs at pit stops?

eric david conley · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2014, 01:09:30 PM »

Gee guys I think you are getting way ahead of yourselves here. Just look at Burt Brokaw in carrier competition. He uses the LIGHTEST components in flying his carrier planes and is untouchable in competition at this time. NO electrics. Speed is fine as they have classes for electric competition. Why add the weight to IC stunt by adding a receiver? What can 2.4 do for racing but add weight? Scale can use 2.4 to its advantage. Don't rush things, let time take its course. Eric

Joe Just · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2014, 03:13:13 PM »

Quote from: eric david conley on August 10, 2014, 01:09:30 PM

Gee guys I think you are getting way ahead of yourselves here. Just look at Burt Brokaw in carrier competition. He uses the LIGHTEST components in flying his carrier planes and is untouchable in competition at this time. NO electrics. Speed is fine as they have classes for electric competition. Why add the weight to IC stunt by adding a receiver? What can 2.4 do for racing but add weight? Scale can use 2.4 to its advantage. Don't rush things, let time take its course. Eric

Eric, your best posting to date! With the lack of participants in E-Carrier in the past 3 years, there already may be enough time to consider that it isn't working. A bit to soon to make a similar decision on 2.4 usage, but the trend is positive toward increase participation. Time as you say will of course be the deciding factor.
Joe

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2014, 05:04:47 PM »

With all due respect Joe, I need to see some numbers to justify a trend upward at all in Carrier. On top of all the rest, when John Brodak closes the book on his Fly-in there will be a real big hole in your participation trend upward.
Thanks
Wayne

don Burke · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2014, 05:31:21 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on August 10, 2014, 03:13:13 PM

Eric, your best posting to date! With the lack of participants in E-Carrier in the past 3 years, there already may be enough time to consider that it isn't working. A bit to soon to make a similar decision on 2.4 usage, but the trend is positive toward increase participation. Time as you say will of course be the deciding factor.
Joe

There is no one being FORCED to use the 2.4 equipment. The rules change was done merely to present a different way to do things.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #16 on:** August 10, 2014, 06:43:38 PM »

2.4 threw the door wide open to electric motor domination of scale. Without 2.4 the mechacnical/electric interface was a barrier to almost everyone. Not it's total no-brainer.

With respect to carrier, they need a ton of tip weight, so locating the radio outboard nulifies any weight gain.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #17 on:** August 10, 2014, 07:54:07 PM »

Bill B. did you get my PM. Now if someone would go read the rules they would find out that the plane still has to be controlled for elevation by the elevator by using a bell crank, two or more lines and a handle. What I seen at Brodaks in scale, the radio did not help that much. Especially if you can't control the plane or keep the engine running.

don Burke · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2014, 08:05:17 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on August 10, 2014, 07:54:07 PM

Bill B. did you get my PM. Now if someone would go read the rules they would find out that the plane still has to be controlled for elevation by the elevator by using a bell crank, two or more lines and a handle. What I seen at Brodaks in scale, the radio did not help that much. Especially if you can't control the plane or keep the engine running.

IMO, those who wrote the rules adopted failed aerodynamics.
The elevator controls only the angle of attack (attitude) of the airplane. The ELEVATION is controlled by the amount of lift from the wing, which in a powered airplane is controlled by the airplane speed due to engine thrust.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #19 on:** August 10, 2014, 09:20:12 PM »

Boy, did this post ever degenerate! Fortunately, Doc is buying the parts so we can put this baby to bed now!

Joe Just · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:35:59 AM »

Quote from: bill bischoff on August 10, 2014, 09:20:12 PM

Boy, did this post ever degenerate! Fortunately, Doc is buying the parts so we can put this baby to bed now!

I agree Bill. Time to move on. Perhaps new thread is needed, or put your thoughts in the debate section. I will leave this on the Carrier section and wont remove it.
Joe

skyshark58 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2014, 07:51:25 PM »

Then why is it called an "elevator"? Maybe everyone should call it a "flipper" like the Britts do.

Mike

don Burke · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:19:27 PM »

Quote from: skyshark58 on August 11, 2014, 07:51:25 PM

Then why is it called an "elevator"? Maybe everyone should call it a "flipper" like the Britts do.

Mike

I'm sorry I even brought up the thought.